Almost human: photographing critically endangered mountain gorillas

I've recently returned from a visit to Africa, where I spent three days photographing mountain gorillas in Uganda. It had been a long while since I'd last photographed animals. I started my way in the photography world shooting wildlife, but for many reasons I quickly became obsessed with landscape photography and went on to devote most of my time, attention and resources into this field. I have been wanting to revisit wildlife photography for ages, and when two friends of mine mentioned they were going to photograph mountain gorillas, it seemed like a sign that the time had come for me to take the first step back into that world.

Mountain gorillas are a critically endangered species only found in central Africa (Rwanda, Uganda and DR Congo). After coming back from the brink of extinction with numbers as low as 254, massive conservation efforts have resulted in their numbers slowly rising, and they have recently topped the 1000 figure. Still, these numbers are very, very low and they are dependent on conservation efforts to survive.

A silverback mountain gorilla in a striking pose. Their similarity to humans, in so many aspects, is astounding.

To avoid too much human contact, the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) allows people to be with the gorillas for no more than one hour a day. That hour comes at a cost of hundreds of dollars. Multiply that by the number of shoots you want to conduct, and you get the cost for the permits. Not cheap at all, and keep in mind that hotels, food and a car with a driver have to be added to the cost, not to mention (well-deserved) tips for the gorilla tracking crew.

A mountain gorilla toddler trying its strength at eating the bamboo shoots his elders love so much.

Every morning, after a drive to the park, we met our porters, handed them our photo bags, and walked for a few minutes to reach the ranger's hut. After undergoing a safety briefing, we started the hike. A gorilla tracking team had already located the gorillas, and were in touch with the ranger to let him know where to go.

The hike isn't particularly difficult, but it is uphill. We usually reached the gorillas after 1.5 or 2 hours, depending on the gorillas' location and on the pace of hiking. When getting closer to the gorillas, we could hear the chest-pounding and smell the overwhelming and unmistakable gorilla body-odor (wow).

Two mountain gorilla toddlers play-fighting over a branch. They are developing their skills for years later when they’re adult silverbacks fighting for life itself and the right to procreate.

After years without doing any serious wildlife photography, I was a bit concerned that the learning curve would be too moderate. On one hand, my composition skills have been well trained by shooting landscapes. On the other hand, landscape doesn't move that much or face away, and wildlife shoots are much more dynamic. I made peace with the possibility that some of the precious time with the gorillas would be partially wasted on regaining my wildlife shooting instincts. I knew I had to try to learn on the fly as well as I could, and most importantly, be very focused on the mission and make the best out of my time among the gorillas.

This juvenile mountain gorilla was trying on a tough stance and some chest-pounding. Others in the group were not impressed.

The gorillas are much more incredible in real life than can ever be shown with an image. The sheer size of the silverback males is astounding – they weigh in at over 200kg, without a gram of fat on them. Their heads are as big as watermelons, and their hands are huge. To maintain that bulk, they have to eat about 35kg of vegetation every single day.

The toddlers and juveniles love fooling around, dangling from branches and making funny faces. You are not allowed to approach the gorillas too closely, but that doesn't mean a curious youngling can't take interest and inspect the strange creature with the shiny thing!

With his mother lazily watching, this toddler came very close to my lens when I was lying on the ground, trying to get an angle. This resulted in an interesting wide-angle perspective.

The very dynamic and playful nature of the toddlers often made the situation very chaotic. It was difficult following them when dangling from the branches, getting a focused shot while maintaining good composition. This was the biggest challenge, and I feel I didn't perform perfectly in this aspect. Still, I got a few lucky shots.

A seemingly frustrated mountain gorilla mother frowns as her very mischievous toddler dangles from nearby branches.

The conditions were not easy. A thick cloud cover offered beautiful soft light, but also made it quite dark, with the thick vegetation not helping. To add to this, the gorillas often stay beneath trees. High ISO is extremely important in such conditions – I often found myself shooting at 3200, 6400 and even 12800. Even that was often not enough.

I had brought most of my lens arsenal to this shoot, but found myself mostly shooting with my Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS (for faraway animals and for close portraits) and with my Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III (for closer encounters and for multiple gorillas in one shot). I almost always used wide open aperture, for obvious reasons.

I took this image at ISO 12800, and to get a proper exposure, a shutter speed of 1/25 sec was needed at 70mm, F4.

To get interesting shots, good compositions are important. While in landscape photography compositions are relatively easy to pre-visualize, wildlife doesn't always cooperate. It is up to the photographer to find the opportunities when the animals position themselves in a compelling way within their surroundings.

This silverback male sat in a way that framed him with leaves.

It's important to use the nearby elements, to connect the subject with its surroundings.

I think the most captivating thing that the gorillas offer is a glimpse into us as a species. In my personal opinion, there is simply no way you can see them in reality and still think we're not related. The look in their eyes, their grumpiness after the rain, their fingerprints – everything about them is so (almost) human.

All in all, photographing the gorillas was an excellent experience for me, a perfect return to the world of wildlife photography and one that encouraged me to shoot much more wildlife in the future. The excitement and many challenges kept me focused and helped me give it my best efforts. I hope you've enjoyed the images, and perhaps you will consider making the effort and visiting these magnificent relatives of ours yourself.

Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez's work on Instagram and Facebook, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

No need to limit yourself to gorillas. While they are very close to us in form, if you watch animal documentaries on tv you will see that basic instinctive human psychology is shared by pretty much every type of social mammal. The animals just strip away the self glorifying BS.

zoos can't have sufficient specimen count for natural evolution to occur, have to do trading just to keep some semblance of genetic diversity. Has failed to save the various rhino species from going extinct.

The mountain gorilla is not the sort of species that would flourish in confined space suitable for human visitors.

@imager of, more than 80% of animals kept in zoos are not endangeroud species. And it never ever succeeded to grow a big population out of some caged zoo animals.Who exactly is the idiot now? Or did you just try to be funny? The smiley was missing then ;)

IMHP the 70-300mm is a too short for such a mission.The photographer seems to be impressed with these images, and has articulated the story so the reader would be convinced (brain-washed?) to like them too, but other, experienced nature photographers will no doubt have different opinions.On the other hand, I understand that he needs to sell a story and pictures. After all, Canon L lenses aren't cheap!

@kelpdiver: That's why you don't fly to Bwindi but have yourself and your gear picked up at the airport in Kampala. And if not: I never met a weight limit in Africa a $20-bill didn't immediatly solve. As for focal lenghts: 400/600s are not needed. I used 14-24/24-70/70-200+2 bodies.

to bei fair. Going to a real zoo is even worse. I cannot understand how people pay money to watch locked-in wild animals that for sure would prefere to life in wilderness. Even worse, they take there big teles to the zoo to 'shoot' those animals and feel proud of the photos. How sad is that...Same goes for circuses. Everybody that visits a circus that has wild animals like elephants should be caged for a day to get an idea...

We should all spend some time in prison for all the innocent people that we lock up, and the fact that society is so inept or unwilling to properly help them - or those who did commit crimes.

As for zoo animals, they are both ambassadors for conservation and a back-up option if their natural habitat gets destroyed. It's not an ideal situation, but zoos have vastly improved in the last half century and will continue doing so. I can think of no other way to convey to millenials that there's something else living on the planet worth saving. Short nature documentary clips watched on your smartphone just don't have the same impact, and being a vegan won't solve all the problems.

Now, all of this only works if the zoo has a real focus on conservation. Often, this includes having specific conservation programs abroad that you can donate to. Many zoos also offer special guided tours for children that emphasise the conservation aspect. You should try it, you might learn something, too.

@Peter1976 how can you know that animals prefer the wild over a zoo? In a zoo, they are pretty much guaranteed mating rights, and are free from the stresses and tribulations of getting eaten by predators. I'm not saying zoos are better than wildlife, but you can also take your kids to them without as many risks or airmiles as a trip on safari.

My guess is you haven't been to any leading conservation-oriented zoos recently.

As for taking photos, my kids love taking photos on my little 200mm prime at the zoo. My eldest has a passion for animals, and now also for photography, largely due to me letting him take the camera to our local zoo, which also happens to be a leading conservation charity.

@goodmeme: "how can you know that animals prefer the wild over a zoo? In a zoo, they are pretty much guaranteed mating rights, and are free from the stresses and tribulations of getting eaten by predators"

WHAT? With this argument (or better say excuse), you could lock up pretty each animal... getting eaten by predators is "normal" wildlife. "free from the stresses"?? I am pretty sure that being locked in in a small area with no variety and watched by screaming kids is much more stressful to them than living in their natural habitat.

With all respect, but this is the most stupid argument I have ever read as a justification for zoos...

And really, that your kids like taking photos of the animals is even more stupid...

@leandros, the conservation argument is a weak one.... Zoos do NOT exist for conservation reasons. Some Zoos may have some kind of conservation programs, but this is a cowardly argument. If they were truly concerned with the preservation of species, they would instead work to preserve animals’ natural habitat.Please ask the WWF or Greenpeace, they know better than you and me, right? And while zoos often claim to take in only the neediest of animals, most of the animals in zoos are not endangered or orphaned at all. "I can think of no other way to convey to millenials that there's something else living on the planet worth saving" - I can think of many better options... iMax movies, education in school, books... no one NEEDS to see a real elephant to know that it is a creature worth saving.Here is a nice article/comment worth reading: https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2017/mar/13/zoos-are-prisons-for-animals-no-one-needs-to-see-a-depressed-penguin-in-the-flesh

Kids liking to go to zoos is exactly the point of zoos. They get interested in animals, the world, and caring about them. Zoos are often in poor urban areas of cities and are one of the few green spaces many kids have access to and also a great source of education for children. They also provide jobs in these areas as well.

While zoos are less than ideal for animals, there are lots of collateral positive effects. Just because you don’t enjoy them or appreciate their societal benefits doesn’t mean they don’t have value to others and society as a whole.

@photofisher"Zoos [...] and are one of the few green spaces many kids have access to "I assume the space ratio between zoos and other green spaces like parks is approx 1:10.000, even in big cities. It is ridiculous to say that zoos are "one of the few greens spaces kids have access to".

"They also provide jobs in these areas as well." - that is really your justification to let wild animals suffer? Yes, they DO suffer.

"While zoos are less than ideal for animals, there are lots of collateral positive effects."None stays in relation to the sufferings of the caged animals. "less than ideal" is the understatement of the year...

"Just because you don’t enjoy them..."I don't enjoy watching suffering animals, right... As said further up, if you do not believe me, please ask any of the big nature conservation organisations (or at least google it) thanks a lot.

@photofisher"Kids liking to go to zoos is exactly the point of zoos. They get interested in animals, the world, and caring about them"

For zoo animals, social interactions, the search for food or mating behaviour are not possible or only possible to a very limited extent. The sight of behaviorally disturbed or apathetic animals shows kids (and all visitors) a completely wrong picture of animals.

Found online: "Ian Redmond, the United Nations Chief Advisor on Apes, commented in an interview on the new gorilla enclosure at London Zoo: "Five million pounds for three gorillas where the same number of animals are killed every day in national parks just because there are some Land Rovers, trained men and poaching patrols lacking - hearing that must be frustrating for a park warden." "

Yes, Peter, you found that quote at freedomforanimals.org.uk, which is not exactly a source of balanced views on the subject.

The upgrades were mandated under stricter government legislation designed to improve living conditions for higher primates. They did exactly what you're asking for, and here you are, complaining! Unbelievable.

exactly Leandros. It may be not balanced, but which aspect or argument that I brought against zoos do you not agree on? Can you point out just one and prove it?

And which "updates" are you talking about? The new gorilla enclousure in London? I did never ask for "upgrades" or for better cages or better live circumstances in zoos, never, in any post. Go back and read again. I completely refuse zoos, no matter how "upgraded" they are. And each empathic individual should do so, too.

We are not talking about insects here, we are talking about intelligent creatures such as gorillas.And regarding "stricter government legislation" - well, who do you trust more when it comes to judgement about zoos: Nature preservation organisations and scientists (which both quite agree in their conclusion on zoos) or a government (or maybe a city that earnes money/taxes with a zoo)? I mean, c'mon...

Very much respect your position but disagree with your position on how much animal “freedom” causes suffering. Most zoo animals are born and breed in captivity and wouldn’t survive in the wild.

Why do ecotourism, environmental groups, and zoos all put megafauna like pandas and gorillas on their literature for fundraising....because some people have a strong emotional emotional connection with animals and in turn are willing to spend money on the organization.

I personally care a lot less about an individual animals rights and care and spend money on habitat. I donate my money and time to The Nature Conservency and more importantly other local conservancies who just focus on buying habitat for preservation so animals can continue to live there with minimal human interference.

So when it comes to long term protection of our earth, when I’m asked should we support wildlife groups and conservencies, ecotourism, or zoos, I say all of the above.

Almost all zoo animals these days are domesticated. Born and raised in captivity. I do agree it would be terribly wrong to capture wild animals today and put them in a zoo. But I don’t think that is happening today, at least the zoos I have seen.

As far as your alien example, if the environment was bad enough that humans would have a hard time surviving outside of captivity, yes I would think it is OK for aliens to keep me contained if they treated me humanely otherwise.

I also don’t think that pets experience emotion as humans do; I could be wrong. I think pets hang around their owners because that’s what they were trained to do from birth (much like animals in a zoo these days) and most importantly their owners provide for their needs. I wouldn’t call this love. But again, I could be wrong. None of use can know for sure what the internal reality of a dog or a cat is at this time.

Sure, there is a lot of similarity in the physiology and neurochenistry of mammalian species. However, there is great difference in anatomy. Particularly relevant to our discussion is the much larger and more complex forontal vortex of humans that lets them experience emotions like love, enjoy the concept of freedom, and have inane arguments on the internet. Whether other animals have the complexity required in their anatomy to experience emotions and concepts like freedom is an very open question to me.

If animals do experience emotion and are sentient; then I would agree that zoos are immoral and that Erez should have gotten permission from the primates first and negotiated an agreeable modeling fee first.

@photofisher: "If animals do experience emotion...." there is no doubt that animals experience emotion. If you doubt that, there is not the least of a base to discuss with you, sorry... They can be sad, happy, scared, they can even mourn! How on earth don't you know that?

"...but disagree with your position on how much animal “freedom” causes suffering."

I do not rely on your or my own opinion on that. You are not a vet, I am not a vet, and we both are not zoologists, right? So I rely on what those people studied and say. The vast majority of specialists agree, that the bigger the cage or compound is, the better. But almost all of them say that STILL those animals suffer, no matter if born in captivity or not and that it would be better to stop to cage at least large wild animals. Please just google a bit, it is so easy.

I have eight years of college education and two degrees in life sciences but by all means remain open to “googling” things.

For example, the Russian fox experiments that I googled at your request seem to indicate that wild animals can be domesticated through genetic selection of the most pro social members of a species. It seems that zoos are in the process of doing this unintentionally through their selective breeding.

Do you view domestication of wild animals as universally immoral? Is it wrong to try to remove the wildness of a wild animal? If so, what should we do with all these half-domesticated animals in zoos?

Unlike many people these days, I truly am trying to understand the view point people who disagree with me.

@photofisher:"Is it wrong to try to remove the wildness of a wild animal?" - if it is for pure pleasure of the masses, then yes, I think so. We are not talking about dogs or cows that have been domestified throughout centuries (and at least dogs experience much more freedom than zoo animals)."If so, what should we do with all these half-domesticated animals in zoos?" - keep them, take care of them, but do not try to breed descendents or prohibit it."For example, the Russian fox experiments..." - 1. This is ONE example. There are uncountable examples of zoo animals suffering. 2. Foxes are not endangered, why keep them in a zoo at all? 3. Foxes are not elephants or tigers or polar bears, their space requirement is much lower. 4. What is the use of watching domesticated animals in a zoo? They behave different than in wilderness, they do not really hunt anymore etc.. What to learn from that? How they look like?

@photofisher, you have two degrees in life science and still think animals do not experience emotion? Which university was that? University of Absurdistan? Sorry for being sarcastic or sounding harsh, but you get the point I think...

So I asked myself what would convince me that animals are sentient. I immediately thought of PET scanning and functional MRI scans. If animals showed similar patterns to humans when behaving angry or scared or happy, I would be convinced. Low and behold, there is tons of research on this over the past 10 years.

@photofisher. "As far as breeding, shouldn’t these sentient animals be giving the opportunity to breed and let them decide?" - in zoos, animals are often brought together for the purpose of pairing. Just don't do that and the population will decrease. One can argument that it is not human to hold them back from pairing. But on the other hand, the suffering for the descendents would go on if you don't do so.BTW, Zoos do not exist mainly from the descendents, but they buy animals. Just don't do that and let the zoo "die out".As said, if the money the zoos generate through entrance fees and subsidies would be put in wildlife preservation areas, a much much higher number of animals could be supported.

photofisher, the evidence on ex situ conservation hs not changed. We are in the same position of having to work with communities in the country/ies concerned to ensure a sustainable future for the animals that are our neighbours while keeping zoo populations as a back-up. And before anyone shouts "cultural imperialism" or some such: these challenges are far from unique to developing countries. We have much the same situation in Europe w.r.t the introduction of bears, wolves, and bison.

The dichotomy that Peter tries to create about zoos vs. natural habitats is also a flawed one - increasingly, animals in the wild are caged in or caged out. Most national parks have fences limiting the natural movement of animals, with diverse consequences. Cecil the lion, for instance, was never meant to be able to get out onto the land where he was then somewhat legally shot.

And as Peter's the statement "most of the animals in zoos are not endangered", that is most certainly not true. (1/2)

@Will: I agree that cetaceans should not be in zoos. But let's not forget that in spite of this, they like all marine life badly need our strongest efforts to be less invasive in the oceans and, if we can be so lucky, turn back the clock a bit.

@Leandros: "The dichotomy that Peter tries to create about zoos vs. natural habitats is also a flawed one - increasingly, animals in the wild are caged in or caged out. Most national parks have fences limiting the natural movement of animals, with diverse consequences"

There is a HUGE space difference between a zoo cage and a national park... While the first is a ridiculous small piece of the natural habitat they live in, the second is (just a rough guess) probably 10.000 times bigger, right? So it IS a huge dichotomy between zoos and national parks. But for you, the fact that national parks have borders seems to be reason enough to justify putting wild animals in cages? Really?

@leandros "But Peter works in marketing, and one could reasonably wonder who his client is at this moment, given his general fervour and immunity to evidence in this debate." - ok, so if one critizises the concept of zoos, one has to have a job related to this attitude? What a narrow minded thinking. Jeees's :). Regarding evidence. There are profen evidences that animals in zoos suffer. Are you immune to that fact? What is your job then? Zoo director :)?

The point is, you're painting a picture where everything is hunky dorey in the wild, and the zoos you've been to have apparently left you with a negative impression (so you say). The reality is that habitat protection isn't going all that well, and it has nothing to do with how much money good zoos generate for conservation, it has to do with civilisation sprawl. The reality is that we need to learn to live with the animals, and the animals with us. There is only one planet, and the idea that we can simply put up fences between "us and them" and somehow have everything be okay is a ridiculously naive one. Did it ever occur to you that zoos are valuable exactly BECAUSE they left you feeling sorry for the animals? If you had actually come away thinking you need to do more for conservation, then the animals, ambassadors, as I and others have called them, would have done a good job. I'm sorry to see that you would rather complain about zoos than take action for conservation. (1/2)

@leandros "But let's not forget that in spite of this, they like all marine life badly need our strongest efforts to be less invasive in the oceans and, if we can be so lucky, turn back the clock a bit."- sure, one more reason not to keep them (or dolphins) in indoor fish tanks, don't you think?

@leandros:"Did it ever occur to you that zoos are valuable exactly BECAUSE they left you feeling sorry for the animals?"ahem... with all respect, that is not the intention of zoos. Now you really are constructing strange arguments...

"I'm sorry to see that you would rather complain about zoos than take action for conservation. " - how come that you know what I do and don't in my private life and which organizations I support?

"The reality is that habitat protection isn't going all that well" - maybe, but what on earth does that have to do with the fact that animals in zoos suffer? Is that a legitimation for you to put wild animals in a zoo, just because protection "isn't going all that well". What does one has to do with the other, can you explain? If those animals in the zoo could only be protected from extinction in zoos rather than by trained and paid rangers I would follow you. But that is not the fact. Or do you doubt that?

(2/2) Conservationists know very well that zoos are a huge compromise, but it's a necessary and valuable one. Good zoos need to be promoted and bad ones closed down. There are bad kindergartens, too, and nobody is asking for kindergartens to be scraped off the face of the Earth. And the more you think about that, the more you'll be forced to realise how close that analogy actually is.

"If those animals in the zoo could only be protected from extinction in zoos rather than by trained and paid rangers I would follow you. But that is not the fact. Or do you doubt that?"

Again, you are ignorant of the facts on the ground. There is no scarcity of rangers trying to protect South African rhinos, but they're hugely outgunned by Asian interests trying to harvest the horn. It's far easier to be a poacher than to catch one, and if you really want to protect the animals in the wild, you have to limit their movement to bomas, and then you're not doing any better than a zoo, and the world still doesn't see what's going on, as indicated by YOUR complete naivety about the realities of conservation work. Life is not a happy pony farm, not for us and not for wildlife. The point is to gradually find ways that we can all get along. Letting species go extinct because you thought they were suffering a bit in a zoo is not a sensible contribution, I'm sorry.

@leandros: you really compare kindergardens to zoos? Humans are not "kept" in kindergardens and they spend maybe 1/20st of their life there.

"Conservationists know very well that zoos are a huge compromise, but it's a necessary and valuable one" - "Conservation" is a marketing buzzword for a lot of zoos use to run their businesses (there are some exeptions to the rule). As you found out, I should know, I work in marketing ;).I found figures that in average only 3-5% of the profit that zoos generate go into conservation and the results are only poor, unfortunately one has to say. And aprox. only 15% of zoo animals are endangeroud at all. So why keep the other 85%? - Right, for entertaining, for generating money.

@leandros: "if you really want to protect the animals in the wild, you have to limit their movement to bomas, and then you're not doing any better than a zoo"

Still BS. I cannot understand that you do not see the huge space difference between a zoo cage and a protected national park, even if the movement there is regulated. This is just... *cencored*.They can still hunt, run, find mates, breed, meet other species. Just exist in a quite normal way or lets say much much closer to their nature.In indian national park Kaziranga, the population of rhinos raised a bit, while only two (!!) rhinos were shot in one year by poaches.

@Leandros: Your only argument pro zoo is, that they help to conservate endangeroud species.To sum it up:

- only approx. 18% of zoo animals are endangeroud (a study published in the science journal PLOS ONE)- only approx 3-5% of the zoo profits go into conservation programs.- It was rarely successful so far to grow a stable population out of zoo animals.

Proof those facts wrong if you like.

Some lighthouse zoo projects can not cover that the vast majority of zoos are just a nightmare for the animals.

And another legitimasation you bring is like "animals in national parks are also kept in borders, so why not keep them in small cages, there is no difference".

I still think education and engendering interest in conversation issues are major benfits to zoos. At least in my area, zoos alsonrobide revenue for a much larger parks system around metropolitan areas. Another major benefit.

@Peter1976. You have called my comment stupid. You have even called my children stupid. You, sir are rude and your moral compass is askew. You should apologise.

Almost all human beings experience emotions greater than most animals by virtue of their greater understanding, particularly with regard to their awareness of themselves and their own mortality. Look around you and see a civilisation - such as it is - not made by zebras or tigers, but by people. For example, I am offended by you calling my children stupid for enjoying photography at zoos. Tell the smartest animal that you think their children are stupid and wait for the vacant expression.

Your concern for animal welfare is exposed as being hollow and self-aggrandising by your casual disregard for human welfare and manners.

- only approx. 18% of zoo animals are endangeroud (a study published in the science journal PLOS ONE)- only approx 3-5% of the zoo profits go into conservation programs.- It was rarely successful so far to grow a stable population out of zoo animals.

@goodmeme. I wrote "And really, that your kids like taking photos of the animals is even more stupid..." - ok, to correct myself. What I ment is that the argument, that your kids like taking pictures of wild caged animals, to JUSTIFY the existance of zoos, is stupid (sorry if I wasn't correct in writing). And really, I still think it is... it is not your kids that are stupid (I don't even know them and they are probably great kids). I think it is stupid to take kids to a zoo and tell them that it is ok for the animals being trapped.

And regarding your question "how can you know that animals prefer the wild over a zoo?" - I find this question indeed stupid, sorry. Animals cannot speak, but ask a zoologist or vet what they found out when studying zoo animals. They suffer from a variety of deseases due to the captivity. Elephants life span is much lower in zoos than in wild life for example. They cannot follow their instincts, which are not wiped out after some generations in captivity.

I am happy to discuss on that. The study also lists some achievements of zoos and the opportunities they might have. As far as I can judge as a non-scientist, it reads balanced.

Here are some quotes from the study:"The proportion of threatened species that exceed a threshold metapopulation size of 250 individuals is rather low, ranging from only 9% for birds to 18% for mammals."and"However, for most of the taxonomic orders, our results show that representation of threatened species is not different from what would be expected if species were selected at random. "

Quote "All 40 chimpanzees showed some abnormal behaviour. Across groups, the most prevalent behaviour (0.83) was eat faeces. Six behaviours were present in all six groups (eat faeces, rock, groom stereotypically, pat genitals, regurgitate, fumble nipple) and a further two (pluck hair and hit self) were present in five of the six groups. Bite self was shown by eight individuals across four of the groups. Across groups and behaviours, the median prevalence was 0.1 (range: 0.03–0.83). The number of different abnormal behaviours displayed in each group varied from 15 to 23 (mean = 18) and was not correlated with the number of individuals in the group (r = 0.46; n = 6, p = 0.35)."

My qualitative experience echoes the PLOS One study...that only about a quarter of those animals in zoos are endangered species. There have been a few examples of success (whooping crane, California condor, black-footed ferret). I do think it would be great if zoos could close down the exhibits of non-endangered species and expand the zoo habitat to support the captive breeding and reintroduction programs of the endangered species. The bigger habitats could become more free ranging and could be made to simulate the wild as much as possible to support reintroduction efforts while still supporting their education mission.

@photofisher, that would be better than nothing. Still the animals would have just a fraction of their normal space and still they would probably suffer. Imagine big cats. The have a territory of hundreds of square miles. So even if the cage was bigger, they still cannot hunt in a pride of lions (which is normaly approx 30-40 lions) as they would normally do. They get their food served dead in the cage, they are bored etc. But yes, it would be a start.

On the other hand, zoos will probably never do so. They are businesses and not altruistic organisations. They use the term "conservation" often as a marketing buzzword. I found figures that not more than approx 5% of their profit is spend for studies and conservation.And regarding education, I think all of these educational goals can easily be met, and far more successfully, without caging. May it be TV documentations, book, school lessons ... whatsoever. I learned more about lions from books and TV than from any zoo visit :).

Let's imagine zoos were forced to close throughout the world and that the zoo animals died out due to forced non-breeding. Thirty years from now, let's imagine there is widespread war, deprivation, disease and political strife in Malaysia / Indonesia, perhaps most of the world. Let's imagine all the orang utans are wiped out.

Are you happy now? Is it better that humanity loses the species of orang utans rather than let some orang utans have sub-optimal lives in zoos? I'm guessing most people would think that was a ridiculous trade-off whatever your opinion.

The great apes are imo a case apart from most other animals due to the combination of emotion and understanding. Of course dolphins, dogs, whales, various others are similar but my point is that emotion and understanding is in short supply (arguably even in humans :) ). Most zoo animals do not obviously suffer in top grade zoos. I'm not sure about great apes and I think they could perhaps do with more space than even the very large, open enclosures I have seen. One route might therefore be to develop high standards for zoos, and /or ape forests, but I don't think removing zoos altogether is such a great idea. Partly due to the need for conservation in an uncertain world, partly for human enjoyment. We differ in philosophy regarding human enjoyment being important, but it's not that relevant here and I don't want to hold your hand in this respect.

We live in an uncertain world and it does little harm to keep the species we find interesting and entertaining spread out geographically, preserved for future generations in case it all goes terribly wrong in the wild, remembering that hoping they stay alive in the wild is a hope or fight against nature since ultimately many or all species lose in the long term.

@goodmeme, as far as I know just a very, very few projects of growing a stable population out of zoo animals have been successful. So even if there will be a worldwide crisis in which way so ever, it will probably not be successful to use zoo animals to regrow them in the wild. Sad, but true.And then if they have died out in the wild, we have some of them in zoos to look at. But for what? For entertainment? They don't even behave like in the wild. And it is not only the great apes that suffer in zoos, but pretty much all mammals. There are several studies of that. Please google "zoonosis".And if you are so concerned about animals being conservated: there are a LOT of endangeroud species that are not kept in zoos, although the space requirement would be much, much smaller. But those animals are just not as "attractive" as e.g. big cats, elephants etc. and do not generate visitors for the zoos. Are they not worth to being "saved"?

@Peter1976 If we care enough about a species, we will make its reintroduction to the wild a success. Google: 'the world isn't perfect and none of us live in perfect conditions anyway so stop obsessing over animals and love people instead'.

@goodmeme: "Is it better that humanity loses the species of orang utans rather than let some orang utans have sub-optimal lives in zoos?"Yes, imho. Because 1. you are very likely not able to regrow them in the wild. 2. They do suffer in captivity. 3. There are better ways to learn about them than watching them behaving unnatural and sufferin in a zoo.

If they die out, they die out. It is sad, yes! But for me there is no benefit of keeping some left-overs of a species and let them suffer to be watched just for pleasure or for taking photos of them... Or what is the benefit for you? To keep them "just in case"?

"but my point is that emotion and understanding is in short supply" - There is a common understanding in science that mammals do have emotions, although on a different level that humans (despite apes, similar to humans). They feel pain, are stressed, mourn when their babies are taken away, they can feel joy and can be sad.

"If we care enough about a species, we will make its reintroduction to the wild a success" - Says who? It sounds like a hope, not a fact. The facts (very few successful attempts) proof the opposite so far. To grow a stable population, you need a critical amount of individuals of a species, not some dispatched individual ones in zoos here and there. That is simple reproduction biology. If you do not believe me, you can ask any biologist or zoologist. It is not about what we feel, but what we know.

And regarding "we" in your statement. We are talking about "zoos" here, and not "us" as a society. Zoos don't seem to care much about that conservation attempt, if they only spend that little on conversation programms... and they don't care a lot about many other "unattractive" endangeroud species, as those don't attract visitors. So I still think the "conservation" part of zoos seems like a marketing tool for them.

@goodmeme: "We differ in philosophy regarding human enjoyment being important" - no, I don't think so. It is more a question of what one defines as enjoyment. I cannot get any joy from watching animals in zoos (although I was as a kid, but back then, I was not aware of the downgrades of zoos).

Basically we are mixing up two things here:1. conservation question2. ethical aspects of keeping animals in zoo

For point one, I think one can rely on studies and what experts say. And there seems to be a majority that doubts the conservation value of zoos (as said, small exceptions to the rule). For point two, one has to decide on his/hers moral compass and we will never agree on that, which is ok. You value your enjoyment higher than the welfare of the animals or better say you claim that most animals do not suffer in zoos. For the last point, I found several studies that proof you wrong. Apes, big cats, polar bears and more, they all suffer no matter how big the cage is.

The last zoo I visited had amazing habitats and lots of space to roam. "Peter" says that these animals would "for sure" prefer life in the wild. Well, humans could live in the wild, too. But we prefer life in "cages"...in houses and apartments...and work in similar conditions - Much better than fighting predators and disease. IOW, we prefer VERY un-natural conditions....and LOVE IT.

@goodmeme: "There are people suffering much more than any big cat, right now, all around you" - so if you are running out of arguments, you choose a 'whataboutism' (you should google that word) ... :).

@Skinner " Well, humans could live in the wild, too. But we prefer life in "cages" What a BS.... So you are forced to stay in your house for your whole life without the chance to EVER go out the door if you wish? You only know the 2-4 persons living in your house? You never travelled?If you want to be correct, you should compare zoo keeping with a life long house arrest (let it be a big house). One does not need to be very clever to see this.

@will murray: they will never understand... I mean, c'mon, now they start to justify zoo keeping with the way humans live ("caged"). And using whataboutisms is always a sign of running out of scientific based arguments. Have a good one.

Gee whiz. You can always tell a debater by the way they have to have the last word, and label what you say as a type of argument rather than considering it. What I wrote was not merely a 'whataboutism' or whatever you call it, but a matter or perspective.

For someone who keeps answering back on a photography thread, it is ironic that you say 'they will never understand' since you seem not to want to understand what others are saying, but only want to win an argument about animal welfare in zoos. I have stated flatly that I don't care about animal welfare in the same way you do. Not even close to it. Do I like animals? Yes, within reason. Will I hurt them intentionally? No. Do I love them? No. Will I pay to see them obviously distressed in small cages? No. Will I pay to see them looking pretty much how they do in nature documentaries? Yes. Do I care about them being 100% happy or content? No. Are apes (and a few others with emotion and understanding) a special case? Yes.

How you feel and think about human consciousness versus animals and the wild has everything to do with this discussion imo, I suggest it is the underlying belief which separates either side of the argument.

Feel free to disagree, it is your right. But it is not your sole right to frame the argument or its boundaries, and ignore the rest of the world or humanity without which there would be no zoos. I can't believe I am wasting time on someone who has repeatedly proven they want to win the argument rather than consider another point of view. Now I am the one suffering. :)

@goodmeme: "but only want to win an argument about animal welfare in zoos" - no, my stupid hope is that at least I manage to let some people think twice about the downgrades of zoos (e.g. by linking to studies). If one then gives questionable and subjecitve comparisons (like "humans are also caged") I sometimes cannot get hold of myself as it feels like an insult to common sense (at least to me, you view might differ).

And if you write "There are people suffering much more than any big cat" - this is no question of perspective for me. Of course there are people suffering more than any big cat. But what do you want express? That we should not care about animal welfare as long as there are people suffering? Why not do both? Or what was your point with that?

It is not about having the last word, I just love to debate (you can tell :)...) and there might be topics that we totally agree on.

I for one have appreciated the discussion. My views on animal sentience and the present conservation value of zoos have shifted a bit. Learned a lot.

Long term, I think zoos will have to change their purpose and practices to stay relevant and justified. Peter and Will’s viewpoint will become more mainstream and eventually a societal norm; public opinion on issues like this tend to move in only one direction. I do still see them as having potential to be a small part of a much broader and comprehensive conservation effort.

I think if people perceive animals in good zoos as being relatively happy and not obviously distressed, there is no need for a change in (western) public opinion, more than perhaps a shifting expectation of large or larger enclosures for certain animal types.

@Peter1976 I see your point. I do think it's a matter of perspective though, and just labelling all zoos as problems is uncharitable. Given very few lifeforms have ever lived in perfect conditions, it is unreasonable to expect all animals to live in a perfectly curated and protected habitat, especially animals with limited emotion and intelligence.

I do think captive apes deserve special conditions, but I think very large enclosures or separate forest zoos should be preferred over letting captive apes die out.

@photofisher: Thanks, and all the best to you!@goodmeme: "and just labelling all zoos as problems is uncharitable" - for you, I accept that of course. I find it uncharitable to lock in animals for entertainment.

And regarding the size of the cages and what impact it has, I don't rely on personal perception when visiting a zoo. We are all not zoologists or biologist, so we do not obviously see when animals suffer (even worse, kids often think it's funny when elephants wave their head, which is ubnormal behaviour). I rely on scientific reports. So it is proven not only apes suffer, but also every other animal, that has a huge natural habitat. It seems as if you couldn't build a cage big enough to NOT let them suffer. I found an intersting article that sums up study results of a research about elephants in zoos:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201212/elephants-in-zoos-dont-do-wellPlease do me the favour and read it. There are similar reports about big cats.

Fair enough. I will get round to reading it, but I don't particularly dispute that animals suffer in some conditions. The question is not whether they suffer, but how much do they suffer.

I personally visit a zoo where the animals seem to be well cared for, and the keepers are zoologists and biologists. They are proud to work there and even the larger animals are breeding well and arguably exhibit less stress than in the wild.

@goodmeme "I will get round to reading it" - thanks."The question is not whether they suffer, but how much do they suffer" - yes, but how can we as non-experts tell HOW much?"and even the larger animals are breeding well ..." - do you have official figures that compare the breeding success in this zoo to the wild living corresponding animals, or is it just what you think? May I ask which zoo it is?

"What many if not all of the potential stressors reviewed above have in common is the inability of the captive animal to controll them. Indeed, perhaps the greatest stressor in the lives of captive animals is their perceived or actual inability to control most aspects of their surroundings. Animals in captivity generally do not have control over what individuals serve as their social partners or their mates. They have little or no control over how much space they are able to put between themselves and other conspecifics, or between themselves and humans. They have little or no control over what kinds of food they are offered, nor when that food is made available. Nor are they generally able to control relevant environmental stimuli such as ..."

Peter, you will not convince a broad section of the human population that we should just let other species die out. Ex situ conservation is here to stay. You can do it away from people where it's difficult to get funding for it, or you can accept a compromise where you permit it to happen in zoological gardens open to the general public. If you have more funding, you can give the animals more space and enrichment. So conducting ex situ conservation in the public eye is a no-brainer.

We learnt (Guardian article posted above) that 50% of species may be gone by 2100. You cite examples from chimpanzees and elephants while claiming that zoos have a major focus on non-endangered species. Large parts of the chimpanzee population are in war-torn parts of Africa, particularly the Congo region. There are concerns that there may be at least one chimpanzee species out there that has not been described by science and may soon disappear. (1/2)

(2/2) There were concerns only a few decades ago that elephants would be hunted to extinction. Fortunately, they recovered - in the wild. Père David's deer is an example of a species that would not be here today without ex situ conservation. The animals that became the founders of today's wild population survived in European zoos. Przewalski's horse's is a similar case.

If you want to learn more about this subject, I would suggest getting an academic book on conservation biology and reading it with an open mind.

Because we don't have enough photographs showing us what gorillas look like.

It's important to select the correct lens, we need to exclude the guides, hotels, 4x4s, riflemen, queues, and pop-up shops. Equally important is to write a narrative text, emphasising the photographer's affinity with nature, in order to sell the images.

These might just as well been shot in zoos; photos of gorillas - we have plenty. Concrete international agreements to preserve their habitat are what we now need. Mr Marom's photo-tours business probably isn't going to help us with that.

This is 'trophy hunting' photography at its worst, and dressing it up as a conservation project is just cynical.

My wife often complains that when she's looking up recipes she'll find one that is embedded in a blog where the author goes on about her kids and how much they like the recipe and how it's just great at whatever time of year suits the type of food, etc. It's there to add fluff and make money and after a while it really feels like it. But this is how some people make a living so more power to them.

It is okay to have both an opinion and an empty gallery. I have always admired all things Duke Ellington and hated The Beatles' Hey Jude even though I am not a songwriter. I wasn't blown away by the Mona Lisa either.

Boissez, I see below that you participated in one of these tours, so I guess we're not going to agree on this; but fwiw:

You say "This sort of 'trophy hunting's makes the gorillas and their habitat worth more alive rather than dead. " - That's true only if you consider the 'worth' of wildlife and habitat monetary. Do you think that conservation is only valid if it turns a profit?

I think that these last remaining wildlife reserves and their inhabitants should be off-limits to commercial exploitation, and funded globally by public money. That way at least the animals will be able to live in peace without being continually pestered by us, and so hopefully maintain their natural state. Here in the UK, there are good examples of this model in some nature reserves.

As I said, I don't expect you to agree. But it's a valid opinion based on good evidence; and certainly not "virtue signalling".

As I see it, what you call value and Boissez calls worth, are indeed definable economic entities. But they don't take account of future indemnity, and so are of limited use in this argument.

What you call intangible value and what I call worth, takes account of the wider evaluation - that a viable global ecosystem is indispensable to human survival. The preservation of these habitats, in that context, would be on the physiological level (though I do question the relevance of developmental psychology here).

So it boils down to what model is best suited to the future wellbeing of both us and our fellow inhabitants. I'd suggest that relying on the tourist trade is risky, and to formalise international agreements (including funding) is the best solution. You might disagree, but just look at Margate...

"You say 'This sort of 'trophy hunting's makes the gorillas and their habitat worth more alive rather than dead.' - That's true only if you consider the 'worth' of wildlife and habitat monetary. Do you think that conservation is only valid if it turns a profit?"

You missed the point. Boissez wasn't saying that preservation is only important if it turns a profit. Boissez was saying that making gorillas worth more alive than dead helps give a stronger incentive to protect them than to poach them or destroy their environment. Because money keeps the locals alive, they're going to try to get money whether that means getting it from tourism or poaching. I'd rather it be from tourism.

It might not meet your arbitrary, unrealistic view of how to conserve, but the end result is more effective when it comes to protecting the species.

Please read up on the economics and logistics of conservation before you criticize this.

I don't miss points. The subject of eco tourism is a complex one, and if done well can benefit wildlife habitats. My objection here is that if you're photographing gorillas with a wide angle lens, then you are endangering that wildlife.

there's an interesting interview from National Photographic, outlining the issues here. A couple of quotes:

“The profits from tourism must benefit local businesses and people if they are to provide the needed economic incentive for wildlife and habitat conservation. Far too often, the true beneficiaries are wealthy investors from developed countries.”

“There is no doubt that the mere presence of humans can disturb wildlife and have negative consequences for conservation.... Another [example] would be the risk of transmission of disease between humans and animals, as has occurred between humans and gorillas in central Africa”

@dqnielg, I am well-read on this subject; and your patronising tone is inappropriate here.

Been there, done that. FYI: permits in Uganda USD600, Rwanda USD1500, DRC USD250. And make sure you get your permits before! Everything else (car, driver, lodge) can be booked on location (way cheaper than booking trough travel agencies), but forget about just going there and getting a permit.

Yes, significantly cheaper than Rwanda. I set up a gorilla tour through local operators I know for a friend of mine and the total cost (permits, drive from and to Kampala, lodges, food, permits) was €1300. If you book exactly the same in Europe, they charge you at least double. So "gorilla photography" comes down to comparing prices.

To my eyes there's a bit of a green tint to the gorillas though? I'm sure it's accurate to the scene (i.e. there was lots of greenery all around reflected on the subject), but I might be tempted to knock it back a bit anyway? Third shot in particular is a bit too green IMO.

We're back to the age old question; do we edit to reflect reality, or do we edit to what we perceive as "correct"? It's a matter of taste at the end of the day.

I agree. It's a question I come across while I edit, too, especially in terms of image brightness. Seems like a lot of people like the bright to over-bright images nowadays (and, to be fair, sometimes I do prefer some images like that). But I am constantly wanting to edit it to look like how it was when I was there. I don't know... Haha.

Firs t off..Excellent shots ! Well done, especially coming from a landscape shooter !..But no..we are not related. They only look a bit like us and facial expressions can be similar. Can they speak..?Can they sing?

They may look similar, but they are so many , many miles apart...created as a lower species than mankind. Man's creative thinking ability far outmatches these primates, as does the many ways we can communicate (though at the rate we are going these days...they are not far behind, lol) and express ourselves.

Most of their time involves fending for food, and eating ..limited creation.....man spends much more time doing many other things (some bad, unfortunately).

My 6 year old niece can communicate and express herself in many more ways than the oldest of these amazing creatures.

Don't let looks fool you...we didn't come from them......they would not be here anymore...we would of became what they were...according to some beliefs out there.

This is the first time I've ever seen an argument using singing as evidence of relatedness. I must not actually be related to any of the rest of my family (or maybe even humanity) due to my inability to carry a tune.

Silly scientists using things like DNA, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, and the fossil record to determine relatedness which all show a close relationships between us and the rest of the great apes. They should be looking at singing ability instead. Of course! Eureka!!

ANAYV,I invite you to watch more documentaries about monkeys. No, they do not speak, but certain species are intelligent enough to learn a language made of thousands of icons, enough to be able to express what they think and feel, or their state of mind to their interlocutor.And there is at least one thing that you will never be able to do, unlike this monkey :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIzijKXUO_0And eventually this one too :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uKRSwVCU1U

>>It's sad that in the 21st century we actually have people who doubt the science of evolution. Evolution is a fact. Period.<<It's sad that people criticize others just because they do not follow their beliefs. Evolution is a belief just as much as religion. Both have their evidences but proof is very much different. A common designer vs a common ancestor--both are believable to depending on where your thought process starts from. DNA is information and information can only come from other information.

From the National Academy of Science: In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

The issue here is not whether something evolved but that people are attacking others because their view is different. I was told I am "harmful to everyone else." "continue to fight your willful ignorance.",To "go on an expedition to photograph the rim of that flat earth"I never said one thing about creation/evolution. I specifically stated that it was sad because people were being attacked because of their beliefs.All of these are either personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. What is wrong with freedom of speech?Please attack the argument and not the arguer. If you want to discuss the evolution and decay of DNA and genetics, there is not space here nor is the forum for such.Photography is a freedom of speech and press and I fully support that thought and this forum for that. This is not the place to attack people.

@bryce - you are partially correct. However, you must also consider that the answers to your comment are in the conjunction with the first post in the thread, that it seems like you are defending.

Also, anonymous forums, and in general "internet discussions" are in a very low and insulting manner, which is something really sad. It is moments like this when i wounder if internet anonymity is really a good thing.

Also, the right of opinion and whatever is ridiculed in such a way these days with flat earth-ers, gender-bending, anti-vaxxers, etc. - things that basically should not exist, because reality is not debatable. Some things are ... but some are not. And while everyone should be allowed to express his opinion, the society should not accept all opinions as valid. If my opinion is that 1+1=4 ... i will never get a pass grade on Maths. And that is it, there shouldn't be added "alternative algebra" to schools to meet my "believes".

I am absolutely defending his right to speak it, just as I would yours. That does not mean I endorse the conclusion. I welcome all kinds of thought. My father always said that if we all agree on everything than somebody is not thinking. It takes out-of-the-box thinking to come up with ideas and thoughts that move us in society.

What I do not agree is when people are attacked for their ideas which does not agree with the majority. All this is is mob mentality and moves society to harm others for their thought process which, in turn, puts a lid on others' thought processes because they fear punishment of society.

I've watched debates between English scholars, Mathematicians, Scientists, Politicians and more. I've found them not only entertaining but enlightening because I can usually learn from both sides. But, I cannot learn if only one side is allowed to speak. If someone wants to claim that 1+1=4 I am would love to hear how they came up with their conclusion, not to belittle them.

In general, Bryce, I agree that we need to respect others. However, facts are not subject to the will of the majority. 1+1 will always equal 2, and anyone who watches a demonstration of that fact yet continues to insist that it equals 4 is no longer worth including in a discussion involving mathematics. That person simply doesn’t add to the discussion anymore simply because they are arguing against fact by demanding that their belief be equally considered. Once the error of their opinion has been proven, if they continue to insist on joining the discussion, they are now wasting the time of everyone else and will legitimately be asked simply to go away - and they have earned any derision just as much as whoever proved that 1+1=2 deserves praise.

The OP here is arguing from a position of willful ignorance. He and his ilk continue to insist on their opinion being considered fact when it is no such thing. Such a person deserves no respect, just as if they continued to insist that 1+1=4.

@Wye: I assume you are responding to what I just said. No. It is not the road to fascism. THAT road is paved by syncophants swallowing demonstrably false, dogma-based statements as fact and then doubling down every time the drivel is proven false again, and again, and again, and again ...

“Intelligent design” is based on and grew out of such dogma and cannot be demonstrated with any technique that can stand up to critical scrutiny. Evolution has been debated over and over again by extremely skeptical and thinking people who gradually came to the understanding that it really is the only way to explain how life arose, and how it got to its current state of glorious complexity.

There are many things we can legitimately argue about. But to people who know how to think, and how to understand legitimate scientific principles, evolution vs. whatever religious fanatics choose to opine about is not one of them.

I disagree with your assessment. Science is not a white horse or infallable. There are many scientist who do not agree with evolution. It can not be proved by repeatable experiment. There are a lot of disagreements within evolutionary circles. It is not a unified theory and many conflicting sub- theories with careers and reputations at stake. Evolution can not explain its origin or how metabolism started before or after the first DNA and so on. Neither do I believe in ID. Neither do I believe that you are reading this as a result of a chemical accident. If you want to believe in evolution then, hey, that is fine by me, I don’t. I am not going to be denigrated by what amounts to acedemic and intellectual facism and intolerance. If you can’t accept a diametrically opposed theorem then it is you that has the problem. Some may believe in a one-eyed, one horned flying purple people eater that’s fine with me. They are wrong but hey, believe in what you want and leave others out of it.

>>Such a person deserves no respect, just as if they continued to insist that 1+1=4<< in very recent history it was believed that a metal bodied airplane could not fly because it was very heavy, let alone fly around the world. Logically this makes a lot of sense because metal is heavy and gravity has so much pull, like was demonstrated by Newton. Yet it was proven to work with ideas by Sir George Cayley who went against the grain and believed that not everything that we see on the surface is exactly right. He was made fun of but today it's completely taken for granted that metal airplanes can fly. Once somebody can see, they are no longer blinded by their own ignorance.

I'm sorry, but you deserve the right to speak just as much as the next guy -- even if logically it may seem wrong, Why? because they may see something that the others in the crowd cannot.

"I'll bet every great thinker and leader we've got could see all kinds of things other people could not! So then why get upset if somebody like me Tries to look at the world just a bit differently?" - Al Yankovic from his book 'My New Teacher and Me'

Yxa,Some people prefer to believe in an old book written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of obsurce and ignorant writers, than read the many scientific publications of million of scientists, researchers, engineers who, for the most part, are pushing our knowledge of the universe, life, etc... in the same direction...

"Some other people traveling the world to see the unseen and make photos that can change the world." - You pay the money, and guides take you to the place where the wildlife subject of your choice is currently active. You're allowed an hour to intrude, to impose yourself and your commercial interests upon fellow creatures.

These photos are far away from changing the world, unless that change is yet another "environmental tourist" trying to make money. Use a slightly wider angle here, and you'll be in danger of including the guys with rifles, the hotels, the 4x4s, and the wastelands surrounding these tourist hotspots.

@PostModernBlokeUnfortunately most people here are more capable to underestimate someone else's work than doing something similar, not to say - better. Maybe is not case with you. Maybe you can show us your gallery with similar "environmental tourist" photos. As I can see you are very familiar with way how to capture photos like these so you probably can show us some similar or even better work, maybe with different animals but whatever. I would like to see and salute you as well ;)

@Duxx - while i don't fully embrace either him or your opinion, i simply have a question for you. What is this "show me your own photos, to see if you opinion matters?" thing. I've seen is countless times, and it really bugs me.

If you are not a good chef, you are not allows to like or dislike food? If you are not a politician you are not entitled to a political view? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed even to vote? :)I think i made my point, so what's with the point with this opinion anyway?

@badiif you are not passionate and good enough to make similar or better photos then try to not underestimate photos you are obviously not able to make. Simple as that.

That's my opinion and you guys may keep bashing all other photographs while yours galleries contain zero photos. Enjoy in your life. No problem ;) end of this discussion for me coz I have a lot of photos to post process ;)

Badi,I totally agree with you. But it is not only a question of being allowed to like or dislike. It is first about our capability to make a difference between a good, an average or a bad photo, which some people here would deny us because we are not able to take a good photo ourselves. The answer is obviously that the more we look at other's photographs, and mainly the masters and reknown pros, the more we are able to compare them and rank them, although there is always some subjectivity.

But you didn't answer my question, you simply repeated that you opinion is that one the doesn't take good pictures himself should not critiques other's work.

And i asked what is that different to other fields? Are you not allowed to have an opinion about a movie unless your name is Stephen Spielberg? Have you never said you disliked a movie?

And as Karroly said, probably one of the most fundamental human ability is to be able to analyze and be able to appreciate things. To be able to tell apart what we like and what we don't.The value of an item (and especially art) is given by the appreciation of the audience. A painting that is liked only by 3 other painters will never have great value, but one appreciated by the public and by critiques (which, by vast majority, are not painters themselves) will be the valuable piece.

@Will MurrayYes. For these people every photo is "piece of cake" and everything is easy BUT their galleries is always empty... or full of test samples with cats and wall charts. Yes, I know this is mostly technical forum but hey, showing a little respect for another's work will not hurt anyone.

to be fair... he did not meet the gorillas by accident or through hard work. He paid money and armed guides took him there. It was a short trek. It feels a bit like a big zoo. Really everybody can do this (they sell it, it is a commercial thing). So with all respect, but what is the achievement here? The photos are really great, but being lucky has not much to do with it. Don't you think?

@Peter1976 I've done a Uganda gorilla trek in Bwindi National Park, hiked for a few hours each way through the hot, humid and rainy Ugandan jungle with no guarantee we would see a group. There was one armed guard with us, and two unarmed park guides. Its hardly a zoo and it wasn't a "short" trek. And yes we were lucky because many groups never see a gorilla.

"To avoid too much human contact, the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) allows people to be with the gorillas for no more than one hour a day. That hour comes at a cost of hundreds of dollars. Multiply that by the number of shoots you want to conduct, and you get the cost for the permits. Not cheap at all, and keep in mind that hotels, food and a car with a driver have to be added to the cost, not to mention (well-deserved) tips for the gorilla tracking crew."

I saw the mountain gorillas in 1993 - just over the Ugandan border in what was then Zaire. It cost very little. I think it's a good thing that comparatively wealthy western tourists (or photographers) have to pay up now and contribute to both conservation and the local economy.

No hotels, cars and drivers for us. Overland truck and tents. You come across some unusual people. A bloke who must have been seventy if he was a day turned up at the camp on the Ugandan side of the border. He was travelling East Africa on a bicycle. It must have taken him years.

I would have killed for a modern digital camera and fast lens. Trying to photograph the gorillas on film - Kodachome - and with a slow lens is nigh impossible in gloomy forest.

Of course it's expensive. Would we deny limousine liberals, pseudo-environmentalists, the exclusive right to see these creatures, all while droning on about "human interference" in their territory? Habitat loss due to the fastest-growing human populations on Earth, poaching so men in China and Vietnam can have fake aphrodisiacs? I pity the poor gorillas, lions, tigers, jaguars, etc. Nice they are being recorded before they disappear.

To maintain genetic diversity any sexually-reproducing species needs a pool of at least 500 breeding pairs- that's where the 1000 figure comes from. Populations also consist of juveniles and non-breeding individuals, so a population of at least 2000 is probably the lower limit for stability.

if no one got it, ill explain. i was a bit cynical. yes i live in a corrupt country where there are only a few rare mountain gazelles left and yes no one cares, the government lets 20,000 cows in the golan heights alone to roam free for meat purposes, they destroy the land, break trees, kill new trees so forests cant regrow, and EAT ALL THE GRASS so gazelles have nothing left. Its amazing to me that NO ONE speaks about this in my country or in the world, no one cares. Cows should not be allowed in nature or at least in forests, they destroy everything they touch. cows belong in their natural habitat, which isnt israel.

I'm not sure I follow your point. Based on the location you posted I assume you're referencing the mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) which ARE listed as endangered. There are approximately 2500 adults left.

that information isnt accurate. it doesnt matter that there are 2500 left when they are locked in in fenced cattle areas. this is the situation in my country which hunting is prohibited in, so imagine the situation in other "middle eastern" countries, which hunting is allowed in.. those gazelles are slaughtered. in my country at least they can live, but they have nothing to eat because of FENCES are everywhere, and in the fenced areas of course cows herd and eat all the grass to the ground. Officially the government says nothing about this, they claim the gazelles numbers are going down due to higher number of predators, but the gov kills wolves (only 100 in the country) because they hunt cattle.. lol..

Thank you. I work in a nature reserve and even the workers believe cows are "good for nature" because their feces "fertilize" the soil.. it is. but they eat all the grass with all the very important flowers, insects.. they just demolish the balance of the ecosystem here. its such a heartache to watch, especially since only very few people actually said anything about this..

Nice story that makes me jealous of your opportunity...I did see a lack of sharpness due to the shooting environment. Would a 70/200 f2.8 have been a better choice for a lens with maybe a fast 135? Reach didn't seem a problem.

A 70-300/4.5-5.6 is lighter than a 70-200/2.8. I think it is important in hiking as long as those required to approach mountain gorillas. Moreover, the subjects are nor moving fast and fast shutter speeds are not much important. IS/VR is mandatory, though.

Wonderful articles like this are one of the main reason why DPREVIEW is such a valuable resource. It's not terribly in depth but it does encourage me to look elsewhere to fill in the details.

It's good to see that the authorities are attempting to protect these precious apes. I hope their anti-poaching practices are successful, for it is this loathsome activity that is the gorillas greatest danger.

i wish efforts were made to make the bushmeat trade , and the tribes that relish this flesh see consuming apes as a type of cannibalism, based on the genetic similarity between all the great apes and humans. ..also domesticating a few nonprimate bushmeat species might lessen the ecological pressures on many species where human lust for wealth land and flesh is concerned .

It's very problematic. These highly endangered animals are better off with as little human interaction as possible because their permanent exposure to us will inevitably alter their behaviour and risk spreading infections to them, all of which can have a devastating effect on their long-term survival. At the same time the revenue from tourism should help in protecting their environment and even enable their habitats to grow. If it really does, however, is debatable.

Alas, tourism and research activities are the main source of income for the agencies trying to protect these gorillas, and many other endangered species. The price of wealthy nations ignoring the problem of disappearing wildlife will eventually be the disappearance of this species, as well as the rhino, elephant, tiger, and many other creatures which, imho, have as much right to life as humans do. Good stewardship is humankind's responsibility but it's something we do very poorly. As long as there is money to be made from the destruction of these noble beasts, their continued existence is in doubt.

@Snapper2013 Even if what you said was actually true, cloning is only a small part of what is needed. For a species to truly survive, it isn't enough to be born. You need to be able to live and eat as your species evolved to, in the proper native habitat, with the proper supporting species above, below, and laterally.

No species fully survives outside of its complete environmental context.

Otherwise, you're saying that it's enough for humanity to exist if you were simply born from a clone and kept in a contained area with synthetic foods and no normal activities, with only a few other humans for company.

Just to add... it is not only biological evolution from one species to the next.

Even within humans, there has been a subtle evolution over many generations. It is not obvious because we don't look at it over a large enough timeline. I would recommend reading something on Social Anthropology from a library, if interested on those lines.

you mean physical anthropology ,cultural traces other matters related to kinship birth and evolution of statehood , language,and societal evolution that has little and likely nothing to do biological evolution beyond evolution shaping us as a whole

OK. I didn't read your first question on those lines. I thought that you were asking about his gear in general.The lenses were probably mentioned because that choice is relevant to the viewpoint of that image, the perspective, etc. May be, the specific body wasn't relevant. Just my guess.

The reason for caring is the Marom's point about having to shoot high ISO.

Obviously you don't care.

If the claim of the 5D Mark IV is correct, that may explain some of the lack of what some would call DR (there are other terms) in the images. Since that camera isn't the strongest higher ISO body from Canon.

The 5D IV isn't the strongest higher ISO body, and at higher ISOs, before noise becomes an issue, one loses a bit of colour subtlety even with a very good lens--meaning here the gorillas look like simply black/grey objects on a uniform pale green background.

Now, I don't know what information there was to capture that day, but I'm betting there was more colour data.

Yup, noticed the heavy handed chroma NR being applied in nearly all images. Not sure if it's just his style to be overprotective about color consistency, or if the images really were that noisy, but ISO 3200 shouldn't be an issue for any recent FF.

I'm not noticing NR so much but lack of colour differentiation. For example the big gorilla alone against the dark trees is lost in the trees. I don't think the tree trunks are the same color as the gorilla. That image was shot at ISO 12,800; I think, don't know of course, that had that been shot with a full framed Sony sensored camera and a good lens (or yes a Leica SL--so likely a CMOSIS sensor) at the same settings, it would have been possible to distinguish the gorilla from the tree. Or perhaps the Canon 1DXII could have done it. Or yes even the 6D Mark I.

Well, color and DR are probably more critical in high ISO shooting than simply noise. Missing color (yes detail and DR is the same) you never get back in postprocessing. However, I am not sure if some of the lack of color is caused by the light conditions. I found it sometimes hard to deal with color when shooting in the dark wood, it‘s dark and greenish, not much left to work on in postprocessing. So I do not complain about these pictures and I doubt that a different body would have made it much better.

I find usually adding +10 to +20 to the tint slider and warming up temp as needed fixes the cast caused by foliage. Just shot a wedding on Sat at a bird sanctuary, with the ceremony in the woods, and everything appears green with plain daylight and cloudy WB. In real life, obviously your eyes adjust to the color, so things appear more or less natural.

@grape jamNo brand war, just a small reality check outside of forums. No Sony was harmed during the takes. The batterylife or a glowing viewfinder @night alone would be a serious problem. Maybe. No Sarcasm.

In case someone doesn't get the reference . . . "killer ape" = humans! Dian was found savagely beaten in her cabin - killed by what authorities believed to be those who sold gorilla parts on the black marker and were losing revenue by her conservation actions.

Longer stays are possible, but not with the tourist permit. If you are an accredited scientist or among the top photographers (NatGeo level), you not only get longer access, but also access to the non-habituated gorilla groups.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.